What's so special about Henry George anyway?
Frank de Jong
Suzanne Honsl
On Nov 22, 2019, at 11:08 PM, Frank de Jong <fde...@earthsharing.ca> wrote:
The Robert Schalkenbach Foundation published my blog entry today.https://schalkenbach.org/whats-so-special-about-henry-george-anyway/
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Earthsharing Canada" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to earthsharing-ca...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/earthsharing-canada/CA%2BM9nn9o4PNW2%3DwLDw-eeWcqzQA2ZbOdzvviKtYcg%3DxOUBit2A%40mail.gmail.com.
Paraic Lally
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/earthsharing-canada/F04A7EAC-6BCD-4D50-9628-31FB5A130C9A%40sympatico.ca.
John Riviere-Anderson
John (naïve neophyte)
Caspar Davis
Frank de Jong
| Sat, Nov 23, 1:15 PM (2 days ago) |  | ||
| ||||
John Riviere-Anderson
John Riviere-Anderson
John
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to earthsharing-ca...@googlegroups.com.
Frank Remiz
Yes, it is a great summary. But, perhaps the point about the stifling of economic vitality needs to be made more explicit: Only a land tax AVOIDS the waste of money & resources associated with income & consumption taxes which essentially force customers & businesses to make less-desirable choices (see Foldvary’s article on the Gaffney Quantum Leap).
More broadly, my impression is that core LVT principles are being adopted so slowly … and not by any large Canadian jurisdiction. Why? Could it be because tax reform of this nature is like constitutional reform; it’s in society’s interest but no elected official wants to touch it because of the inevitable blowback & fear-mongering associated with any such radical idea?
On that note, can we learn anything from the federal Green Party with its flagship environmental policies? Can it be said that its 14-year Parliament presence, solitary as it was, garnered sufficient media attention to develop public awareness, credibility and acceptability for certain public policies (as evidenced by the selective uptake by one or two other parties)? In other words, if tax reform was married with certain other issues (e.g. labour; fiscal), might there be a sufficiently large political base SOMEWHERE to establish a Parliamentary beachhead? Henry George tried.
….Frank Remiz
Erich Jacoby-Hawkins
I think this is great, there us just one concept missing from your examples section:
"A business is situated on 2 acres of land, the parcel market value at $500,000. The owner pays the rental value (5 percent) or $25,000 in LVT, but no other taxes."
This makes it sound like the only tax business pays is LVT, which
would exempt a lot of hugely profitable tech/pharma giants, online
retailers, or entertainment businesses. Think Microsoft, Pfizer,
Facebook, Amazon, Disney. And of course the banks, who don't need
much land (although often are in the highest value locations).
To fix this, you can add something about how business pays for
their ecological footprint (Amazon shipping, all energy/mining
use) and for the privilege granted by patent protection
(Microsoft, pharmaceuticals), copyright, trademark (Disney), and
by enabling regulations.
You could also include how airlines would pay high pollution
surtax (beyond carbon tax, since airline emissions at high
altitude are more harmful than surface CO2), fees for landing
rights & air corridors; how trucking/shipping companies would
pay more road & congestion & even parking fees, etc.
Otherwise one might read this and think that business essentially gets a free ride other than what they pay for the bit of land their operation sits on.
You might also want to look at a Tobin tax on large financial
transactions, since those profits depend on the privilege provided
by well-regulated public financial markets. This would help catch
the excess profits of hedge funds, insurance companies, banks,
etc. Perhaps also a charge for banks on the privilege to create
deposit money through lending to individuals & businesses,
which again is only possible due to good banking regulations.
Erich.
The Robert Schalkenbach Foundation published my blog entry today.https://schalkenbach.org/whats-so-special-about-henry-george-anyway/
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Earthsharing Canada" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to earthsharing-ca...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/earthsharing-canada/CA%2BM9nn9o4PNW2%3DwLDw-eeWcqzQA2ZbOdzvviKtYcg%3DxOUBit2A%40mail.gmail.com.
Frank de Jong
"Economic rent refers to revenue without a corresponding cost of production, a societal surplus, or superprofits, that flow to monopoly-held assets like land, resources (oil, copper, trees, water . . .), the privilege to pollute, the electromagnetic spectrum, (includes radio waves e.g., commercial radio and television, microwaves, radar, privileged access to the internet), agricultural supply management quotas, drug patents, taxi medallions, et cetera."
But, you're correct, the 'Scenarios' section of my blog doesn't sufficiently reflect the various sources of rent, and needs fixing.
ach
Frank,
With FAANG you are trying to get the grist of it, but I think you are somehow slipping.
The first problem I see: those comparisons between 407 and internet and FAANG seem to be shifting in every paragraph. Especially that it is not clear from your argument, who is this public "delivered of their money" by a monopoly. After all majority of users of FAANG on the public side, do not pay a cent.
Secondly: a big problem with FAANG is not the money they get, but undue influence on public life they have, that has nothing to do with the money they earn, but with the cultural effects they produce:
fake news spreading, echo chambers, extremism propagation, big brother watching your actions privacy issues, fueling of consumerism with ad based business model. So unless they are taxed to death, they will still do the damage in the model you are proposing.
Thirdly: I would not use insults like "thieves" and "pirates", not because you should not in general, but because you are not using them in other cases of rent appropriation.
I am not sure how to formulate, what you are trying to say better, though.
No more thoughts for now,
Andrzej
Erich Jacoby-Hawkins
I think it's important to capture the public rent that comes from exercising IP.
While having IP and exclusive use of your own creative output
probably isn't rent per se, the ability to *enforce* your IP
rights depends on publicly-funded legal and police and border
control systems. IP is worthless in a world where there is no
enforcement - which is why, for example, it's much less an issue
in China (or was) where/when enforcement is lax. Hence the value
of IP is created not only by your own creativity, but also the
working legal system that allows you to profit from it. Just like
the value your physical building gets from access to public fire
and police and ambulance services. Plus, much modern IP is traded
on the internet, which as you note, is analogous to a public
highway. Even though the internet is (to some extent) privately
built & maintained, there is also a large public role in its
invention, advancement, and the provision of various standards
which make it worthwhile.
For example, writers and composers today can strongly enforce
copyright on their laws, but in the time of the great classical
composers or playwrights (all of whose works are now public
domain), cheaply printed copies were probably difficult to
prevent, eating into the income of the writers. Although of course
today's tech also undermines that in some cases, like my friend
who wrote the definitive book on a particular scriptural variant
which can't be published for income because someone posted his
entire text to a website in Russia. Today we address that with
international treaties and economic pressure (as we have been
doing with China) which are both things accomplished by government
at great expense.
The creation and ownership of IP is thus not privilege, but the
ability to *protect* ownership is, just like the ability to keep
trespassers off your land is privilege even if your land itself
(let's say, a minimal homestead) were not privilege. Patent,
copyright, trademark, and similar protections are only possible
with a well-organized, fully-funded public system of protections
with the enforcement powers of government.
FANGS would have much more difficulty profiting if their IP rights were not thusly enforced.
Of course, Amazon is also able to negotiate favourable rates for
things like shipping, through special deals with USPS and Canada
Post that smaller businesses can't access, and that's a form of
privilege which comes from scale or market dominance, a
monopoly-like power. Not to mention the tax breaks they get when
they promise to set up a new hub or campus or whatever.
Erich.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Earthsharing Canada" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to earthsharing-ca...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/earthsharing-canada/CA%2BM9nn9pNAY6zJ%3D%3D5w%3D6F5bNQqJBCJSa%3DqDq_ROjZTp%2BssY9%3DA%40mail.gmail.com.
Frank de Jong
Nic Tideman suggests that FAANG are like any other company. He explained at last year's CGO conf that when any company consistently earns above a normal ROI it must be enjoying some type of monopoly, either it was first to the silver mine or it enjoys some form of restricted competition. Dan Sullivan says FAANG have what he calls social monopolies.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/earthsharing-canada/bc6d6622-20a6-8fe8-8b32-431d0963b85b%40gmail.com.
Suzanne Honsl
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/earthsharing-canada/CA%2BM9nn_ohi7Qcb07v8T6MDJqZ_PyH-1TwieQqa9GDChzY9X8bA%40mail.gmail.com.